Case law

Application of Walter D. Bernhart and William A. Fetter

417 F.2d 1395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 20, 1969

See, e. g., Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.S. 545 , 58 S.Ct. 662 , 82 L.Ed. 1008 (1938). Why an applicant should not be so entitled is not clear. … As to claims 8, 13 and 18 the decision of the board is affirmed; as to claims 19-21 the decision of the board is reversed. Modified. 1 .

Manny v. Garlick

135 F.2d 757 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1943

In the last cited case the court referred to the case of Lemp v. Randall, 33 App.D.C. 430 as follows: “The Assistant Commissioner cites our decision in Lemp v. … In this court the question of diligence in filing a sole application to take the place of a joint application in interference was considered in the case of Crane v.

United States v. Borgfeldt

1 Ct. Cust. 255 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1911

Seeberger v. Schlesinger ( 152 U. S., 581 ). … And again in Cadwalader v. Zeh ( 151 U.

Buchanan v. Lademann

54 F.2d 425 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 4, 1931

We agree with the foregoing statement of the board. In the case of Sachs v. Wadsworth, 18 C. C. P. A. … Rolfe v. Hoffman, 26 App. D. C. 336. In the case of Miller v.

United States v. Pacific Trading Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 131 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1926

The appellee’s protest, claiming the merchandise to be dutiable as onions, under paragraph 768, was sustained by the Board of General Appraisers. The United States has appealed to this court. … The issues in this case are almost identical with the issues in the case of United States v. La Manna, Azema & Farnan et al., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 123 , T.

Myrurgia, S. A. v. Comptoir De La Parfumerie, S. A. Ancienne Maison Tschanz

441 F.2d 673 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 13, 1971

Compare, General Time Corp. v. Dunbar Furniture Corp., 56 CCPA 121, 402 F. 2d 806 , 159 USPQ 536 (1968). … See, Izod, Ltd. v. Zip Hosiery Co., Inc., 56 CCPA 812, 405 F. 2d 515 , 160 USPQ 202 (1968). For the reasons stated herein the decision of the board is reversed.

In re Kuhle

526 F.2d 553 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1975

See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966); In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449 , 42 CCPA 770 (1955). … In re Launder, 222 F.2d 371 , 42 CCPA 886 (1955); Flour City Architectural Metals v. Alpana Aluminum Products, Inc., 454 F.2d 98 (8th Cir. 1972); National Connector Corp. v.

Commerce Drug Co. v. Kirkman Laboratories, Inc.

461 F.2d 833 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1972

The board considered it, and appellee does not question that it is properly before us. … Compare Mead Johnson & Co. v. American Home Products Corp., Patent Appeal No. 8730, decided June 29, 1972, wherein TEMPURETS was held to suggest a modified or related form of TEMPRA.

Clairol Incorporated v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.

442 F.2d 980 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 13, 1971

The decision of that board is therefore affirmed. Affirmed. NEWMAN, J., took no part in the decision of this case. 1 . The board’s opinion is reproduced in full at 157 USPQ 392 (1968). 2 . … A. v. Comptoir de la Parfumerie S. A. Ancienne Maison Tschanz, Cust. & Pat.App., 441 F.2d 673 decided concurrently herewith.

In re Voss

557 F.2d 812 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 23, 1977

Corning Glass Works v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., supra. … See Crome v. Morrogh, 239 F.2d 390 , 44 CCPA 704, 112 USPQ 49 (1956).

United States v. Buss

3 Ct. Cust. 87 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1912

Such braids and hats were originally held dutiable by the board by similitude to silk braids and hats, respectively. But this decision of the board was reversed in Paterson v. United States (166 Fed. Rep., 733; T. … D. 29377), and that decision was later followed by the board. The board evidently believed that they were bound by the decision in the Paterson case and the case of Rheims v. United States (169 Fed. Rep., 662; T.

Application of Beck

155 F.2d 398 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1946

“The authorities we have consulted are as follows: Rule 94; Schreiber v. Bauer, 1919 C.D. 4; Tunstall v. White, 1926 C.D. 19; Haight v. Nell, 1927 C.D. 4; Chillas v. … In The Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co., 270 U.S. 390 , 46 S.Ct. 324 , 70 L.Ed. 651 , this subject matter is treated in a way that we think is convincing of the correctness of the board’s position.

In re Smith

481 F.2d 910 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 2, 1973

Conover, 443 F.2d 1386 , 58 CCPA 1366 (1971), and Snitzer v. … See Snitzer v. Etzel, supra; In re Robins, 429 F.2d 452 , 57 CCPA 1321 (1970).

Campbell v. Wettstein

476 F.2d 642 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1973

Archer v. Papa, 265 F.2d 954 , 46 CCPA 835 (1957); Blicke v. Treves, supra. … See also Carter-Wallaee, Inc. v. Riverton Laboratories, Inc., 433 F.2d 1034 (2d Cir. 1970).

Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Dresser Industries, Inc.

518 F.2d 1399 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 7, 1975

Kautenberg Co. v. Ekco Products Co., 251 F.2d 628 , 45 CCPA 761 (1958). The board’s decision is in accord with this prevailing rule. … See Beef/Eater Restaurants, Inc. v. James Burrough Ltd., 398 F.2d 637 (5th Cir. 1968). Accordingly, the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. . See Dresser Industries, Inc. v.

Continental Nut Co. v. Cordon Bleu

494 F.2d 1397 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1974

” because this mark can be translated from the French as “BLUE RIBBON” and that, under Morehouse Manufacturing Company v. … Le Cordon Bleu, S.a.r.l. v. Continental Nut Company, 177 USPQ 734 (TTAB 1973). . Continental Nut Company v. Le Cordon Bleu, S.a.r.l., Oust. & Pat.App. 494 F.2d 1395 .

Eidlitz & Son Inc. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 56 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 24, 1924

—Union Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Robinson ( 79 Fed. 420 ); Chicago, R. I. & P. Railway Co. v. Chickasha National Bank ( 174 Fed. 923 ) and cases therein cited; First Unitarian Society v. Faulkner et al. ( 91 U. … —United States v. Gavin & Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 292 : T. D. 36804).

Mine Safety Appliances Company v. The Electric Storage Battery Co.

405 F.2d 901 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1969

In each quadrant there are two ribs forming an inverted “V” which points to but does not touch the intersection of the two main ribs. … Although appellee’s arguments here, as below, are based in part on the Supreme Court decisions in Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 , 84 S.Ct. 784 , 11 L.Ed.2d 661 , and Compco Corp. v.

United States v. Swedish Produce Co.

4 Ct. Cust. 223 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1913

United States v. Benjamin et al. ( 72 Fed., 51 ); Gillespie et al. v. United States ( 124 Fed., 106 ). … See also Morimura Bros. v. United States ( 160 Fed., 280 ); Lawder & Sons v. Stone ( 125 Fed., 809 ); Roebling et al. v. United States ( 77 Fed., 601 ).

In Re Nicolson

49 F.2d 961 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1931

Slattery v. Lamer, 36 F.(2d) 298 ,17 C. C. P. A. 725. … Tracy v. Leslie, 14 App. D. C. 126; Podlesak v. McInnerney, 26 App. D. C. 399. In the case of Brogden v. Slater, 40 F. (2) 988, 989, 17 C. C. P.